Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 5976718" data-attributes="member: 54843">One of the ideas mentioned somewhere about 5e was that, while wizards would be Vancian, other spellcasters would use different spell mechanics. To me, this sounds ideal: those who like spell preparation and the rest of it can play wizards, while those who'd rather just blast everything in sight can play, say, warlocks.I've been thinking that the same kind of divisions might help to flesh out non-magical classes as well. What got me thinking about this specifically was looking at the barbarian class in Pathfinder, which, rather than raging X times per day (like in 3e), instead gets Y rounds of raging per day. I thought, wow, that sounds a lot like the stamina point system <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/326673-mustrums-mythical-fighter-techniques.html" target="_blank">Mustrum Ridcully has a thread about</a>. Maybe, rather than trying to reinvent the fighter class, we should be adapting the barbarian to use those stamina points.So here's a sample Barbarian class:...and so on. The idea is that we get a class with the same ability to &quot;nova&quot; that a wizard has, in a way that (maybe) (I hope) doesn't piss off everyone who likes simple fighters. After all, this is pretty much a streamlined version of the powers barbarians had in 3e. I think other non-caster classes might benefit from the same type of variation in mechanics. For example, I've always thought of rangers as sort of Batman-esque, always doing best when prepared specifically for each encounter. Maybe this could translate into more 4e-style &quot;encounter&quot; abilities for rangers?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 5976718, member: 54843"] One of the ideas mentioned somewhere about 5e was that, while wizards would be Vancian, other spellcasters would use different spell mechanics. To me, this sounds ideal: those who like spell preparation and the rest of it can play wizards, while those who'd rather just blast everything in sight can play, say, warlocks. I've been thinking that the same kind of divisions might help to flesh out non-magical classes as well. What got me thinking about this specifically was looking at the barbarian class in Pathfinder, which, rather than raging X times per day (like in 3e), instead gets Y rounds of raging per day. I thought, wow, that sounds a lot like the stamina point system [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/326673-mustrums-mythical-fighter-techniques.html"]Mustrum Ridcully has a thread about[/URL]. Maybe, rather than trying to reinvent the fighter class, we should be adapting the barbarian to use those stamina points. So here's a sample Barbarian class: ...and so on. The idea is that we get a class with the same ability to "nova" that a wizard has, in a way that (maybe) (I hope) doesn't piss off everyone who likes simple fighters. After all, this is pretty much a streamlined version of the powers barbarians had in 3e. I think other non-caster classes might benefit from the same type of variation in mechanics. For example, I've always thought of rangers as sort of Batman-esque, always doing best when prepared specifically for each encounter. Maybe this could translate into more 4e-style "encounter" abilities for rangers? [/QUOTE]

Verification